Section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 prevents landlords from forfeiting ‘relevant business tenancies’ until 30 June, and possibly longer. Regulations have also been made restricting the use of commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR) during the same period, and emergency legislation is promised preventing landlords from serving statutory demands and instituting insolvency proceedings. But tenants should think twice before withholding rent and other lease payments, and landlords do not necessarily have to take a passive role.
The (the Bill) was given its first reading on Wednesday 20 May 2020. Parliament will not be considering the next stages of the Bill until 3 June 2020 so there is still some time, and possibly further amendments, before this is approved and given Royal Assent. More detailed notes will be provided once this Bill has been given Royal Assent, but the headline points of the current draft are:
Statutory demands
The tragically unforeseen current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Hong Kong society including the health of its citizens, the economy and the business community.
The impact of COVID-19 is being felt at all levels of the economy and will work its way through bankruptcy courts for years to come. In these early days, many creditors who are themselves suffering are providing assistance to troubled companies. Suppliers and commercial landlords are agreeing to various forms of relief, including modified credit terms and rent relief to allow customers to bridge this period of unprecedented disruption. While these corporate good Samaritans are providing immediate aid they may be subjecting themselves to the risk of future losses.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
Last week, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law, implementing broad relief for individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19. One of the sections of the CARES Act receiving less attention is a temporary amendment to the Bankruptcy Code to provide streamlined reorganization procedures for businesses with debt of less than $7.5 million.
As the nation hunkers down to combat the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bankruptcy courts throughout the country have moved quickly to implement procedures to preserve access to the courts while limiting in-person interaction during the crisis. Each court’s specific COVID-19 procedures are different, but they largely prohibit in-person hearings, recognize the need for flexibility and adjournments for non-emergent matters whenever possible, and encourage the creative use of technology to allow as many matters to go forward as scheduled, including evidentiary hearings.
Social distancing. Elbow bumps. Flatten the curve. These are the new phrases and behaviors we have learned to avoid exposure to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This epic struggle forces us to reexamine and reevaluate our daily habits, lifestyles and customs as we work collectively to minimize the harm to our families, friends and neighbors throughout the United States.
On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 18-1269 (U.S. 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that the so-called “Bob Richards rule” should not be used to determine which member of a group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a federal income tax refund.
The recent decision of Adam Constable QC in the case of Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (in liquidation) -v- 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd, considered an application for summary judgment to enforce a decision by an adjudicator in favour of an insolvent company.